Argument from Math

[Wowbagger]

Reading only the OP, I note a more-than-superficial resemblance to Aquinas’s Fifth Way, the argument from order, as well as some of the Summa’s later work deducing the properties of the First Cause (i.e. the first twenty-or-so Questions in Part One). Worth looking at, and worth refining your argument accordingly.

I also notice a mostly superficial resemblance to Descartes’s version of the ontological argument. Also worth looking at, because that is another argument from mathematical principles that does not work.

Just some signposts for you on your road. It’s much too late tonight to get into the exuberant, fun, and often very silly work of experimental philosophy.

 

[Los_Angeles]

That’s what I said. The God’s existence can be demonstrated by philosophical argument.

Then I can’t buy it. Philosophy is based on man’s reasoning abilities and I don’t see how man’s reasoning abilites can know how to arrive at Christian goalposts - the concept of a God without revelations or help from God i.e, the Bible.

I can’t put that much faith in philosophy and I think Christians that develop the philosophical steps from “scratch” to arrive at the Christian concept of God are benefiting from Christian theology having read the Bible.

Have you ever wondered why St. Thomas, St. Anselm and countless other Catholic theologians and philosophers thought it necessary to present philosophical proofs for God’s existence?

I gave what you said alot of thought away from the computer, and I read the link to Peter Kreeft that you provided, yet I am still not convinced.

Before I became Catholic, I had no concept of God, and could not create one on my own. Then I dabbled in philosophy yet was still left with questions. I became Catholic precisely because I read the Bible, then read a book on the Catholic Church.

Hearing the testimony of someone who became Catholic starting purely from philosophical argument without direct or indirect influence from the Bible would greatly interest me.

He is also capable of demonstrating to the skeptic that the Catholic faith is not contrary to reason.

Ok I agree with that.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Bevels]

A lot of posts have arisen about what math can and cannot prove and I thank you for your contributions. Here is what bothers me. Any proof about the existence of God uses logic in order to come to its conclusion. Math, which is less ambiguous than any other form of logic that I know of is nevertheless a form of logic. Why limit the bounds of math without limiting the bounds of philosophy. From your arguments, the same sorts of limitations would apply to both.

according to Godel’s incompleteness theorem:

"Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems for mathematics. "

This supposes that there are axiomatic statements which do not apply. I believe the argument holds true as long as there are logical axiomatic statements. These do not necessarily have to be mathematical statements. I just think that mathematical statements are more self-evidently true than philosophical ones which is why I use math as a starting point.

“The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an “effective procedure” (essentially, a computer program) is capable of proving all facts about the natural numbers. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem shows that if such a system is also capable of proving certain basic facts about the natural numbers, then one particular arithmetic truth the system cannot prove is the consistency of the system itself.”

Not being able to prove all facts does not mean the inability to prove some facts.

 

[Bevels]

I also think it necessary to argue the point from another perspective. I recognize that there are limitations of human logic. However, the fact that we can arrive at logical, self consistent, axiomatic, truth is evidence enough to prove what I am saying. Math was simply the example I chose.

1. If logical, self consistent, axiomatic, truth exists, it by definition is not dependent on the universe to be true.
2. Axiomatic truth exists which is self-consistent. Consider Gödel’s theorem. If it is true, his theorem itself is self consistently and axiomatically true. If it is false, then there does exist a mathematical system which is completely self consistent and axiomatically true. Either way, consistent axiomatic truth exists.
3. Since it is self consistent, it therefore exists outside of the universe. Otherwise, it would depend on the universe for its existence and therefore not be self consistent.
4. The Firse Cause caused the universe and the universe follows logic.
5. Therefore, the First Cause is necessarily logical.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Bevels,

Are you proposing that there is a circumstance in which a man should witness his faith to others starting from a “proof” that a man has created instead of starting with the Catholic Church?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Bevels]

Bevels,

Are you proposing that there is a circumstance in which a man should witness his faith to others starting from a “proof” that a man has created instead of starting with the Catholic Church?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

This is from the Catechism:

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

So yes you can use proofs to convey the truth of God’s existence to others. There are things which can be proven through reason and things which require direct revelation to be known.

 

[Los_Angeles]

So yes you can use proofs to convey the truth of God’s existence to others. There are things which can be proven through reason and things which require direct revelation to be known.

Thanks for rebuking me and quoting from the Catechism. I went and read the surrounding paragraphs myself and found:

36
"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God."12

Now I have these questions:

I am perplexed as how it is possible for atheists to exist?

Why could I myself not understand from my own reasoning that there was a God before I read the Bible?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Bevels]

Now I have these questions:

I am perplexed as how it is possible for atheists to exist?

Why could I myself not understand from my own reasoning that there was a God before I read the Bible?

Just because something can be understood from one’s own reasoning does not necessarily mean that it will. For example, Newton reasoned out the principles of calculus. Therefore, it is possible for humans to reason out calculus. However, most of the people that learn about calculus don’t derive everything independently but read books about it or attend lectures. It is the same regarding God’s existence. I simply think most people are not exposed to Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God and while they could reason it out, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will. I also think that people may come to reason the existence of God through personal experience.

Here are Aquinas’ 5 proofs:
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

When you think about it, an atheist has no reason to try to disprove God because for the atheist, life is meaningless regardless of what someone believes. Everyone will wind up as nothing anyway. What you instead see is atheists dedicating much of their limited existence to attacking God and specifically Christianity and desperately trying to disprove them both.

I honestly have no idea why people are atheists but if I had to guess I would say that they don’t want to give up a particular sin in their life and want justification for committing it. Atheists don’t make sense to me either.

 

[promethius]

A lot of posts have arisen about what math can and cannot prove and I thank you for your contributions. Here is what bothers me. Any proof about the existence of God uses logic in order to come to its conclusion. Math, which is less ambiguous than any other form of logic that I know of is nevertheless a form of logic. Why limit the bounds of math without limiting the bounds of philosophy. From your arguments, the same sorts of limitations would apply to both.

The same limitations apply to both. Empirical statements by us can only be made about that which occurs within the cofines of this finite dimensional universe.

Aquinas’ proofs detail logical constraints which apply within the universe to denote that the entire universe as a whole follows the same pattern, and thus the behavior of the whole can be surmised from the characteristics of the parts.

What Aquinas is very careful NOT to do is to argue that the same rules apply independently of the universe, precisely because Aquinas realized that they don’t.

Not being able to prove all facts does not mean the inability to prove some facts.

Again, it’s not that we can’t prove SOME facts about that which is outside the physical universe. We can’t prove ANY facts about that which is outside the finite physical universe, precisely because all scientific law as we known it is incongruous at the border of the universe. There MAY be some sort of physical law on the other side of that border, but we don’t know and aren’t able to actually observe such a thing.

1. If logical, self consistent, axiomatic, truth exists, it by definition is not dependent on the universe to be true.

If that is true, then logic itself is not dependent on a creator either, and God is not God, but merely the big kid on the playground who has more power than mere humans.

Science itself holds that ALL physical law is incongruant at the borders of the physical universe, so I don’t see why you throw away all scientific evidence to say that you can, in fact, make emperical statements about that which CANNOT be observed.

1. Axiomatic truth exists which is self-consistent. Consider Gödel’s theorem. If it is true, his theorem itself is self consistently and axiomatically true. If it is false, then there does exist a mathematical system which is completely self consistent and axiomatically true. Either way, consistent axiomatic truth exists.

Godels theorem only applies within the universe. Science makes no statement about whether it applies outside the universe or within any other possible universes. Godels theorum is entirely based on the constructs of physical dimentions within THIS universe.

In other words, your statement is nice, but it is not observable or provable in any way.

1. The Firse Cause caused the universe and the universe follows logic.
2. Therefore, the First Cause is necessarily logical.

This is not a valid conclusion based on the argument. The universe follows a natural law, which points out that there is probably some form of design rather than randomness, and that therefore said designer is RATIONAL. But what this doesn’t say is that logic is self-existant independent of the universe and the creator, or that the creator is bound by logical constraints or natural law (in which case, said creator is not God because said creator would be deficient)

 

[Bevels]

The same limitations apply to both. Empirical statements by us can only be made about that which occurs within the cofines of this finite dimensional universe.

Aquinas’ proofs detail logical constraints which apply within the universe to denote that the entire universe as a whole follows the same pattern, and thus the behavior of the whole can be surmised from the characteristics of the parts.

What Aquinas is very careful NOT to do is to argue that the same rules apply independently of the universe, precisely because Aquinas realized that they don’t.

Yet Aquinas uses rules within our universe to arrive at the conclusion of that which exists outside our universe. Are you **sure **rules of logic don’t apply outside our universe? You see by taking a subjective approach you have made a judgement on something which you admittedly know nothing about. In this way, subjective arguments are essentially self-refuting. You talk about me having no evidence (other than the common experience of all mankind and logical deduction) and then base your argument on other universes of which is the no evidence.

Again, it’s not that we can’t prove SOME facts about that which is outside the physical universe. We can’t prove ANY facts about that which is outside the finite physical universe, precisely because all scientific law as we known it is incongruous at the border of the universe. There MAY be some sort of physical law on the other side of that border, but we don’t know and aren’t able to actually observe such a thing.

See above. I would further like to repeat that something which is self-consistent by definition requires no outside factors in its existence. Therefore, a principle which is self-consistent cannot by definition require the universe for its consistency. Otherwise, it would not be self consistent.

If that is true, then logic itself is not dependent on a creator either, and God is not God, but merely the big kid on the playground who has more power than mere humans.

My whole point is that logic is not dependent on the Creator just as the Creator is not dependent on Himself. I am saying logic is a property of God, not something created by God. I don’t think that you have understood my argument.

Science itself holds that ALL physical law is incongruant at the borders of the physical universe

You will need to cite a reference for this. Your other points basically repeat what you already said so I won’t address them individually.

This is not a valid conclusion based on the argument. The universe follows a natural law, which points out that there is probably some form of design rather than randomness, and that therefore said designer is RATIONAL. But what this doesn’t say is that logic is self-existant independent of the universe and the creator, or that the creator is bound by logical constraints or natural law (in which case, said creator is not God because said creator would be deficient)

But God IS bound by logical constraints. Do you believe that God has the power to constrain His power and yet remain omnipotent? If yes, He is not omnipotent because He has constrained His power. If no, He is not omnipotent because He is not powerful enough to constrain His power. This sort of reasoning is fundamentally flawed because of the logical contradictions inherent in the question. God cannot make logical contradictions. To do so would be to contradict Himself.

Since you are insistent on maintaining that logic is not a property of God, I will try this from yet another angle:
newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

Here is Benedict on faith and reason
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

John 1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Word is translated here as Logos or Logic. Before we get into a semantics debate, reason, intellect and logic are synonyms.

Aquinas’ Argument from Order:
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

Aquinas extrapolates properties of God from what we observe from the universe. Taking a purely subjective approach to answering questions is tantamount to giving a non-answer. In fact, his entire Summa Theologica is extrapolating principles of God and scientifically unknowable properties of creation through logical deduction. If logic were not universal, he could not do this.

 

[promethius]

Yet Aquinas uses rules within our universe to arrive at the conclusion of that which exists outside our universe.

No. Aquinas takes logical properties of portions of our universe to extrapolate properties of the universe as a whole (which, I might point out, is a logical fallacy of composition). From that he contends that the universe as a whole is a reaction (a la, if there are times in which each thing in the universe would not have existed, there is necessarily a time in which NO thing in the universe would have existed). So to Aquinas, the logic of the universe applied to the universe says that at one time the universe as a whole did not exist. It also states that the universe can’t have started itself because no item in the universe is self-creating.

From this position, he extrapolates that SOMETHING must have pre-existed the universe and does not follow the laws of the universe. That something is the first cause… a cause which he described as God.

But you’ll note: this proof makes no assertion about anything outside the universe, nor does it attempt to extrapolate anything about the nature of such a God.

I would further like to repeat that something which is self-consistent by definition requires no outside factors in its existence.

Is the idea: a number always equals itself such a definition? What about the idea of a square circle? Is that a logically contradictory definition?

Outside the universe, niether statement has any meaning that we can ascertain because dimensions (length, width, height) and units of measurement break down at the boundaries of the universe. IOW, outside the universe, we do not know that the concept of “square” or “circle” has any meaning… no known dimensions means no rational concept of shape.

My whole point is that logic is not dependent on the Creator just as the Creator is not dependent on Himself. I am saying logic is a property of God, not something created by God.

You’re taking a hellenistic view of logic… one which is radically condemned by the church. Read the article you linked to and you’ll see that hellenistic views of Logos are the basis of the Arian heresy and are condemned.

You will need to cite a reference for this.

Dr Stephen Hawking (emphasis mine): "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because** the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.** The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "

You can read more about this here: hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62

In fact, Dr. Hawking desperately seeks an explanation for how the universe’s laws do NOT break down outside the universe, because if they do entirely then we must posit a “God”…

But God IS bound by logical constraints.

noooooooo… God’s actions in THIS universe are bound by logical constraints insofar as the universe and logic is a result of God’s rationality. Human definitions of words, likewise, do not bind God. We define a square as a shape with four equalateral sides at right angles to each other. Can God create a circular square? God can create whatever He wants, but OUR observational data is how we categorize God’s creation. Not the other way around.

Do you believe that God has the power to constrain His power and yet remain omnipotent?

This has always been a garbage line of thinking. I can go on a killing spree at any time. I don’t. I constrain myself. However, I could still go on said killing spree. The ability to choose NOT to act is constraint, but it does not limit future action. (although, again, we run into the problem: outside the universe there is no time as we understand it, hence no future so to speak)

Since you are insistent on maintaining that logic is not a property of God, I will try this from yet another angle:
newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

From your own source (which you should read before you post): “In the subsequent history of Christian theology many conflicts would naturally arise between these rival concepts, and Hellenic speculations constitute a dangerous temptation for Christian writers.”

John 1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Word is translated here as Logos or Logic. Before we get into a semantics debate, reason, intellect and logic are synonyms.

Your etymology is incorrect. Logic comes from the Latin Logica, which came from the greek Logikos… meaning “of or pertaining to reason.” Logos, greek, means “reason, idea, word.”

So Logic pertains to reason. Or in other words Logic (Logikos) is a result and creation of the Reason (Logos) of God.

Aquinas extrapolates properties of God from what we observe from the universe.

Actually, every argument built by Aquinas is based on the idea of an entity outside the universe that DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LOGICAL RULES OF THIS UNIVERSE, and that this entity is responsible for initiation of the universe.

He calls this completely ambiguous entity “God.”

 

[Bevels]

You are right I concede . Thanks for explaining in the way you did.

Quote:
Do you believe that God has the power to constrain His power and yet remain omnipotent?

“This has always been a garbage line of thinking. I can go on a killing spree at any time. I don’t. I constrain myself. However, I could still go on said killing spree. The ability to choose NOT to act is constraint, but it does not limit future action. (although, again, we run into the problem: outside the universe there is no time as we understand it, hence no future so to speak)”

I agree and I only mentioned this because I thought you were arguing from a subjective viewpoint but now I see where you are coming from and your argument makes sense to me.

 

[itinerant1]

No. Aquinas takes logical properties of portions of our universe to extrapolate properties of the universe as a whole (which, I might point out, is a logical fallacy of composition).

It is difficult to see what your statements have to do with Aquinas. At best you have put forward a strawman argument. The demonstration advanced by St. Thomas does not take “logical properties”…etc. The argument involves, rather, a consideration of the metaphysical nature of created things.

From that he contends that the universe as a whole is a reaction (a la, if there are times in which each thing in the universe would not have existed, there is necessarily a time in which NO thing in the universe would have existed).

Nowhere in his writings does St. Thomas characterize the universe as “a reaction.” If you think otherwise, then provide the quotations with correct citations from the works of St. Thomas.

So to Aquinas, the logic of the universe applied to the universe says that at one time the universe as a whole did not exist. It also states that the universe can’t have started itself because no item in the universe is self-creating.

Here again you have misrepresented St. Thomas. His demonstration presumes, for the sake of philosophical argument, an eternally existing universe. This fact you have failed to grasp.

From this position, he extrapolates that SOMETHING must have pre-existed the universe and does not follow the laws of the universe. That something is the first cause… a cause which he described as God.

The laws of the universe are the laws governing the relations of contingent being. The argument, if you were to read it, you would see that it does not say “SOMETHING must have pre-existed the universe”. The pre-existence of God, according to St. Thomas, we know only through Revelation, not philosophical analysis. The philosophical argument of St. Thomas is very different from what you are presenting here.

But you’ll note: this proof makes no assertion about anything outside the universe, nor does it attempt to extrapolate anything about the nature of such a God.

To the contrary, the argument makes a very specific assertion about a Being that transcends the universe of contingent beings, and for the same reason, it proves something specific about the nature of God.

 

[itinerant1]

Is the idea: a number always equals itself such a definition? What about the idea of a square circle? Is that a logically contradictory definition?

It is not a definition at all, logically contradictory or not. Hence, there is no meaningful point being made here.

Outside the universe, niether statement has any meaning that we can ascertain because dimensions (length, width, height) and units of measurement break down at the boundaries of the universe. IOW, outside the universe, we do not know that the concept of “square” or “circle” has any meaning… no known dimensions means no rational concept of shape.

This statement is highly ambiguous since there is no explanation of what you mean by “outside the universe”.

You’re taking a hellenistic view of logic… one which is radically condemned by the church. Read the article you linked to and you’ll see that hellenistic views of Logos are the basis of the Arian heresy and are condemned.

This is one of the strangest statements I have seen in a long time. Hellenist logic is not condemned by the Church, it was condemned rather by Martin Luther. Neither is Hellenistic logic the basis of the Arian heresy. You might have difficulty in explaining why the Church’s best theologians explain the relation of the Persons of the Trinity in terms of Greek philosophical terms. From all appearances you know nothing about “Hellenistic logic”, not even so much as to be able to explain what the term means.

Dr Stephen Hawking (emphasis mine): "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "
You can read more about this here: hawking.org.uk/index.php/…liclectures/62
In fact, Dr. Hawking desperately seeks an explanation for how the universe’s laws do NOT break down outside the universe, because if they do entirely then we must posit a “God”…

I don’t think you are in a position to discuss Hawking. Science, according to its methods and proper field of competence cannot even “prove” that there is a universe. In order to do so it would have to get outside the universe to view it, and this is an utter impossibility. The point here is that the concept of a universe is first a philosophical notion.

The whole point of Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” is to argue for a universe that has no need of God. And all I can say is “A Brief History of Time” was not brief enough.

noooooooo… God’s actions in THIS universe are bound by logical constraints insofar as the universe and logic is a result of God’s rationality. Human definitions of words, likewise, do not bind God. We define a square as a shape with four equalateral sides at right angles to each other. Can God create a circular square? God can create whatever He wants, but OUR observational data is how we categorize God’s creation. Not the other way around.

Wrong again. God cannot create a “circular square” since the notion is utterly meaningless and self-contradictory. No one can form a concept of that which is inherently meaningless and self-contradictory. So why would anyone claim that God can work nonsense?

So Logic pertains to reason. Or in other words Logic (Logikos) is a result and creation of the Reason (Logos) of God.

This is pure Arian heresy. How ironic!

Actually, every argument built by Aquinas is based on the idea of an entity outside the universe that DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LOGICAL RULES OF THIS UNIVERSE, and that this entity is responsible for initiation of the universe.

He calls this completely ambiguous entity “God.”

There is nothing ambiguous about God in the writings of St. Thomas. In them we find the clearest expressions about God and the nature of our knowledge of God, which is an analogical way of knowing. If you had ever studied the works of St. Thomas, you would understand the anaology of being.

 

[itinerant1]

Then I can’t buy it. Philosophy is based on man’s reasoning abilities and I don’t see how man’s reasoning abilites can know how to arrive at Christian goalposts - the concept of a God without revelations or help from God i.e, the Bible.

The Apsotle Paul disagrees with you when he says, “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Rom. 1:20).”

I can’t put that much faith in philosophy and I think Christians that develop the philosophical steps from “scratch” to arrive at the Christian concept of God are benefiting from Christian theology having read the Bible.

Aristotle proved the existence of God from the things that are made.

No one is claiming that the existence of God, which has been proven by the use of reason alone, is God as he more fully known through Revelation.

I gave what you said alot of thought away from the computer, and I read the link to Peter Kreeft that you provided, yet I am still not convinced.

Then it would greatly benefit you to think more about the issue.

Before I became Catholic, I had no concept of God, and could not create one on my own. Then I dabbled in philosophy yet was still left with questions. I became Catholic precisely because I read the Bible, then read a book on the Catholic Church.

Each person has his own, unique conversion story.

Hearing the testimony of someone who became Catholic starting purely from philosophical argument without direct or indirect influence from the Bible would greatly interest me.

Ok I agree with that.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

Cicero’s work on philosophy was instrumental in leading St. Augustine in the direction of belief in the one, true God.

As far a what the Chruch teaches, it does affirm along with the Apostle Paul, that the existence of God can be known by reason alone.

Effects always reveal something of their cause. Accordingly, we can know something of the Creator by contemplating his creation.

 

[Bevels]

As always thank you for your knowledge and wisdom itinerant1. I hope that my understanding will one days be as good as yours. I retract my concession.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Aristotle proved the existence of God from the things that are made.

Yes thank you for that. I have now been rebuked twice on this thread! Once by Bevels and again by itinerant1.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes thank you for that. I have now been rebuked twice on this thread! Once by Bevels and again by itinerant1.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

“Rebuked” sounds a little dramatic for a discussion, don’t you think?

 

[itinerant1]

Dr Stephen Hawking (emphasis mine): "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because** the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.** The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "

To take Hawking’s argument one step back, so to speak, I will add that science is incapable of knowing whether any thing preceded the Big Bang or initial singularity. If there was no thing prior, except creatio ex nihilo, this too is beyond the scope of science because physics cannot study the “nothing”. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be equated with Creation ex nihilo, as much as it leads us to think of it as such.

Even if on the other hand, there existed a universe that collapsed prior to the initial singularity, science can have nothing to say about this despite certain cosmologists who like to engage in such speculation.

It is highly unlikely, under Hawking’s own principles, that the existing universe could have within itself some matter/energy phenomena that would be evidence of serial inflation and collapse.

In addition, the idea of a multi-verse is nonsensical and useless. The cosmos is a uni-verse. To posit the possibility of multiple universes is also useless because we could not know that they existed, and hence would have no basis in science for even suggesting the idea.

If, on the other hand, we could have some knowledge of the existence of another universe, then that so-called universe must have some connection with our own, and for this reason it is but a part of our universe rather than being another universe.

To be “outside” the universe can only mean, then, to transcend the universe in both space and time. Outside, being a spatial term derived from sense perception, becomes in this context a figurative rather than a literal expression.

 

[Los_Angeles]

“Rebuked” sounds a little dramatic for a discussion, don’t you think?

No, I did not intend to be dramatic. Any suggestions on what I should have said?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church let it be anathema.